Firstly, no other poster has 'busted' me on anything! Secondly, at 2013 AO he won the first set and went 40-0 against Djokovic's serve in the first game of the second. So listen carefully. He almost went a set and a break up! What part of that don't you understand? Or did you even bother to watch the match at all because it sure seems like you didn't!

So now I'm putting you on Ignore because I can't think of a single thing more we can possibly say to each other until that distant day comes when you finally mature and can discuss tennis and tennis players with the kind of grown-up, mature reasoning the rest of us strive for!

Cheerio!!

Click to expand...

Oh i did point out to you your myth about Wimbledon final. You chose to ignore it :wink:

But not all his Slam losses were "in horrible fashion" as you put it, were they? In the 2010 AO final against Federer, the first 2 sets were decided by just one break and the 3rd went to tie-break and was decided at 13-11! At 2012 Wimbledon he went a set up and almost had a break in the 2nd before the roof closed.

Click to expand...

My Post137 In Wimbledon final, when the roof was closed, they were tied at one set each and in third set it was 1-1 40-0 on Roger's serve when roof was closed. Don't make it what it wasn't.

Oh sure,he's a real failure isn't he? One Slam, 5 other finals, 1 Olympic gold medal, 8 Masters 1000 titles and 10 other titles! If that makes him a failure, I absolutely dread to think what you're going to call every single player ranked below him which is, in case you've forgotten, 99.9999% of the entire friggin' ATP tour!

I'd like to say it was a nice try but it doesn't even come close!

So what? Rafa lost to Murray at 2 Slams in 2008 and 2010. And how is the fact that he never got to play him in 2013 relevant? None of the top players have yet to play Rafa in 2013!!!

Oh don't deceive yourself. You hate him alright! Only a die-hard Murrayphobe like you would attempt to dismiss everything he's achieved as 'luck' or a 'fluke'. But hey, you're not doing yourself any favours by trying to peddle this trash. You're only making yourself look stupider and stupider and just exposing yourself for the biased, Murray-hating troll that you are. Do yourself a favour and peddle it somewhere else to someone who actually cares!

Click to expand...

1* - 5 is a very poor record, especially when it's really 0 - 5. And one could argue that, as the face of British tennis, Murray is a failure until he wins Wimbledon. With his current competition, he's a few months away from being a complete disgrace.

That talk about Rafa and whatnot was just to explain how Murray's improved results last year don't suggest that he has become a better player, or that he hasn't declined.

Hate fills only your heart my friend, as evidenced by the anger in your words. I do not hate Andy. I am just very honest with my critique.

1* - 5 is a very poor record, especially when it's really 0 - 5. And one could argue that, as the face of British tennis, Murray is a failure until he wins Wimbledon. With his current competition, he's a few months away from being a complete disgrace.

That talk about Rafa and whatnot was just to explain how Murray's improved results last year don't suggest that he has become a better player, or that he hasn't declined.

Hate fills only your heart my friend, as evidenced by the anger in your words. I do not hate Andy. I am just very honest with my critique.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how he is technically on 0 slams at 1-5? I'm not the only Brit who does nothing but applaud what he has achieved in one of the greatest era of mens tennis.

Why no threads bashing the hell out of Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Gasquet, Nalbandian? The aforementioned players have all failed and yet people always pull excuses out of the bag as to why they have FAILED and will turn things around while Murray is now at the sharp end of every slam event (yes, even including the French).

Truth of the matter is Murray stands to collect more slams in the future as Federer and Nadal continues their slow(or rapid) decline.

Get the sick bags ready the next time he hoists up another major trophy. Even better if he wins his next slam in the hurricane winds. Get it right up you haters! A win is a win whether it's in done in the wind.

1* - 5 is a very poor record, especially when it's really 0 - 5. And one could argue that, as the face of British tennis, Murray is a failure until he wins Wimbledon. With his current competition, he's a few months away from being a complete disgrace.

That talk about Rafa and whatnot was just to explain how Murray's improved results last year don't suggest that he has become a better player, or that he hasn't declined.

Hate fills only your heart my friend, as evidenced by the anger in your words. I do not hate Andy. I am just very honest with my critique.

Click to expand...

last thing you are is 'honest'..seeing as you are a reality denier,

murray won, but carry on crying and being a butthurt sourpuss..its amusing

1* - 5 is a very poor record, especially when it's really 0 - 5. And one could argue that, as the face of British tennis, Murray is a failure until he wins Wimbledon. With his current competition, he's a few months away from being a complete disgrace.

That talk about Rafa and whatnot was just to explain how Murray's improved results last year don't suggest that he has become a better player, or that he hasn't declined.

Hate fills only your heart my friend, as evidenced by the anger in your words. I do not hate Andy. I am just very honest with my critique.

Yeah, I can see that you don't know how to read well: I did NOT say a single sentence, word, or a syllable, about a 6 time finalist being lucky, I SAID a guy who gets to finals, always loses(and doesn't just lose, but loses in horrible fashion), then wins a match, that goes the distance, in unusual conditions, is lucky. See the difference there? And, btw, what is it about "there should NOT be an * by Murray's win" do you not understand?

Click to expand...

The bit where you contradicted yourself after saying there's no asterisk then go onto say that his slam win was a fluke which you conveniently omitted above.
How can there be no asterisk then you call it a fluke?

Wow you are a real soothsayer and must think highly of Murray's talent if you're that terrified that he'll win.

We'll be so impressed with your prediction if Murray doesn't win a slam on his worst surface. I'll come to you for advice on future predictions yeh?

Personally, as a Brit and a Scot, I'm happy he's won one slam and couldn't give a monkey's if he never wins another.
First Brit in seventy odd years to win a slam. That'll do very nicely thank you.
Anything else is just a bonus.

I think this year will tell. If Murray doesn't win another slam this year he probably won't ever. Although that will also depend on the up and coming players. Someone has to break through sooner or later. If no one breaks through then Murray has a chance at more, especially W or USO, but not RG.

Murray isn't consistent enough at the moment to win too many slams, he played well at the US Open but didn't seem to have the drive or passion in Mebourne. I reckon he will win Wimbledon this year round though

Murray isn't consistent enough at the moment to win too many slams, he played well at the US Open but didn't seem to have the drive or passion in Mebourne. I reckon he will win Wimbledon this year round though

Click to expand...

Only 1 guy on tour has made at least the final of the last 3 slams - seems a bit harsh to call that guy inconsistent.

LOL at the delusional Murray haters claiming he has won 0 slams somehow. The madness of planet TW never ends.

Click to expand...

The sheer lack of respect he is shown by so many on here is truly extraordinary. These people never want to give him credit for anything and simply try to deny the things he has accomplished, especially winning his 1st Slam! Lol...it's as if they don't want to admit that 2+2 =4 or that if you shut your eyes when you look up at the sky, you can just pretend that the moon doesn't exist!

The guy has been a top 10 player now for almost 6 years, has been in the top 4 for most of that time, has won more big titles and been in more big finals than any other player on the current tour with the exception of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Yet for these naysayers, he is merely a chronic loser who never achieves anything other than by sheer good luck or weirdly unique circunstances! Well, if Murray is just a loser, I wonder what the heck that makes Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Gasquet and 99.99% of the rest of the ATP tour!

The funniest part is the way they pesistently contradict themselves in their eagerness to try and do him down. One of them tried to argue that he was one of the least adaptable players on tour and then elsewhere admitted that he had been better at adapting to the adverse weather conditions at the USO than Djokovic!

I find that it is pointless to try and argue with them which is why I have placed most of them on my ignore list. I spend too much valuable time and bandwidth on here rebutting their outrageous nonsense when I really want to spend it having serious and rational discussions about all sorts of players, not just Murray.

what's an ignore list? If you ignore posters then you don't see their posts? But then how can you refute what they say? They could be saying terrible things about your favourite player and you'd never know. Isn't it better just to scroll on by with a quick glance every once in a while? :wink:

what's an ignore list? If you ignore posters then you don't see their posts? But then how can you refute what they say? They could be saying terrible things about your favourite player and you'd never know. Isn't it better just to scroll on by with a quick glance every once in a while? :wink:

Click to expand...

Trouble is, I can rarely just scroll by. If I see something particularly ludicrous I can't resist the temptation to reply and try to make them see sense. But it's a waste of time of course. I am happy to debate aspects of Murray's strengths and weaknesses with serious and reasonable posters but not with those who insist he never won a Slam because there was a bit of wind blowing on the courts while the tournament was in progress! :twisted:

Trouble is, I can rarely just scroll by. If I see something particularly ludicrous I can't resist the temptation to reply and try to make them see sense. But it's a waste of time of course. I am happy to debate aspects of Murray's strengths and weaknesses with serious and reasonable posters but not with those who insist he never won a Slam because there was a bit of wind blowing on the courts while the tournament was in progress! :twisted:

Click to expand...

A bit of wind??! Surely you're not serious. It was nearly a hurricane out there:shock:

A bit of wind??! Surely you're not serious. It was nearly a hurricane out there:shock:

Click to expand...

Wow, I guess this makes Murray the first player in history to win a tennis match, let alone a Slam, while a nearly hurricane was raging on court! That's definitely one up on Fed, Djoko, Rafa, Pete, Andre, Bjorn, Rod et al! :wink:

Wow, I guess this makes Murray the first player in history to win a tennis match, let alone a Slam, while a hurricane was raging on court! That's definitely one up on Fed, Djoko, Rafa, Pete, Andre, Bjorn, Rod et al! :wink:

Click to expand...

Well I said "nearly" a hurricane. Murray's useless compared to all those guys, come on now. I'm sure you know this. You seem like a smart fellow.

Wow, I guess this makes Murray the first player in history to win a tennis match, let alone a Slam, while a nearly hurricane was raging on court! That's definitely one up on Fed, Djoko, Rafa, Pete, Andre, Bjorn, Rod et al! :wink:

Well I said "nearly" a hurricane. Murray's useless compared to all those guys, come on now. I'm sure you know this. You seem like a smart fellow.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but 20 mph winds are not nearly a hurricane. Not even close. When Nadal blew Murray off the court in IW in 09, they had to play in 40 mph winds, yet no one thinks of that win as a fluke or as an uncountable achievement. You can't have it both ways.

Are you living in some strange little fantasy world all of your own? Do you actually watch tennis or does your mum try to stop you watching it in case you get up late for school the next morning? So you actually think losing a tie-break that stretches to 13-11 is somehow the equivalent of someone losing a set 6-0 or 6-1? Have you no sense of shame or proportion at all? Truly your hatred of Murray has deranged your wits beyond all logical reason. Try and get over the fact that he beat Djokovic to win a Slam and stop boring us all by trying to pretend that it was like something unprecedented in the entire history of tennis! Your boy lost. It's painful I know. But you'll get over it ..one day when you've grown up and can look back on what you've posted here with justifiable shame and embarrassment!

<<Of course it's equivalent, you get credit for winning a set, whether you win it 6-0 in a Golden Set or 7-6(99). Losing in straights repeatedly can be indicative of competitiveness to some degree, but, in the end, they don't ask how you won, only IF you won. >>

Firstly, no other poster has 'busted' me on anything! Secondly, at 2013 AO he won the first set and went 40-0 against Djokovic's serve in the first game of the second. So listen carefully. He almost went a set and a break up! What part of that don't you understand? Or did you even bother to watch the match at all because it sure seems like you didn't!

<<Of COURSE you were busted, you're so clueless, you can't even keep your lies straight. " You said Murray had a lead that he NEVER hade. In Wimbledon final, when the roof was closed, they were tied at one set each and in third set it was 1-1 40-0 on Roger's serve when roof was closed. Don't make it what it wasn't Sound familiar? You're a liar, plain and simple.>>

So now I'm putting you on Ignore because I can't think of a single thing more we can possibly say to each other until that distant day comes when you finally mature and can discuss tennis and tennis players with the kind of grown-up, mature reasoning the rest of us strive for!

The bit where you contradicted yourself after saying there's no asterisk then go onto say that his slam win was a fluke which you conveniently omitted above.
How can there be no asterisk then you call it a fluke?

Click to expand...

Are you REALLY that dense? They're not necessarily linked: There are people who want to put an * by Barry Bonds' home run total, just as there were people who put one by Roger Maris' single season record when he had the temerity to break Babe Ruth's season record. Nothing flukey about BB's HR total, but, obviously, some people have a problem with the PED thing. As I've mentioned earlier, the 1980 Olympic hockey win over the USSR was one of the greatest sporting events I've ever seen, and I readily admit that if they played the Russians 20 times, they'd be lucky to win once-so that was definitely a fluke. But deserving of an *? Get a clue...

Are you REALLY that dense? They're not necessarily linked: There are people who want to put an * by Barry Bonds' home run total, just as there were people who put one by Roger Maris' single season record when he had the temerity to break Babe Ruth's season record. Nothing flukey about BB's HR total, but, obviously, some people have a problem with the PED thing. As I've mentioned earlier, the 1980 Olympic hockey win over the USSR was one of the greatest sporting events I've ever seen, and I readily admit that if they played the Russians 20 times, they'd be lucky to win once-so that was definitely a fluke. But deserving of an *? Get a clue...

Click to expand...

Let's get this clear. And without personal insults because it just makes you look like a nasty little coward hiding behind your keyboard.
We don't want that image of you do we? And if your irrational intolerance and name throwing and derisory comments of myself and other posters carries on I'll have you reported and banned.
Now. Can we have a civilised discussion?
You are saying there is no asterisk to Murray's USO win but at the same time you are saying that Murray's win was a fluke.
Murray has nearly always troubled Djokovic beating him in straight sets at the Olympics taking him to a close 5 at last years AO beating him at Cincy, close Rome semi, pre 2011 beating Djokovic at the previous 3 Masters finals, has 8 Masters titles, 6 slam finals, countless semis, leading H2H with Federer, no 3 and 4 in the world for the past 5 years. Reached the final of the last 3 slams. And you're trying to say that Murray's win was a complete fluke and use an analogy of beating someone with a 20-0 previous winning record?!!

Let's get this clear. And without personal insults because it just makes you look like a nasty little coward hiding behind your keyboard.
We don't want that image of you do we? And if your irrational intolerance and name throwing and derisory comments of myself and other posters carries on I'll have you reported and banned.
Now. Can we have a civilised discussion?
You are saying there is no asterisk to Murray's USO win but at the same time you are saying that Murray's win was a fluke.
Murray has nearly always troubled Djokovic beating him in straight sets at the Olympics taking him to a close 5 at last years AO beating him at Cincy, close Rome semi, pre 2011 beating Djokovic at the previous 3 Masters finals, has 8 Masters titles, 6 slam finals, countless semis, leading H2H with Federer, no 3 and 4 in the world for the past 5 years. Reached the final of the last 3 slams. And you're trying to say that Murray's win was a complete fluke and use an analogy of beating someone with a 20-0 previous winning record?!!

Click to expand...

Slams in general, and Slam finals, in particular are completely different from other tournaments, more at stake, and, more pressure. Check out Murray's record vs the Big Three in tournaments, Slams, and Slam finals, and you will, see a marked difference-as evidenced by his very respectable record overall, at least against Fed and Nole, and his putrid record vs them in finals. Furthermore, if you can't understand that a fluke and result worthy of an * are completely separate, then we have nothing further to talk about.

Slams in general, and Slam finals, in particular are completely different from other tournaments, more at stake, and, more pressure. Check out Murray's record vs the Big Three in tournaments, Slams, and Slam finals, and you will, see a marked difference-as evidenced by his very respectable record overall, at least against Fed and Nole, and his putrid record vs them in finals. Furthermore, if you can't understand that a fluke and result worthy of an * are completely separate, then we have nothing further to talk about.

Click to expand...

Well thank you for a civil response.
Have you considered that maybe Murray was unlucky in some of his slam finals eg his first slam final USO 2008 scheduling was a bit of a killer.
Also if you say Slam finals are a different animal then also Murray has never had the luxury of not playing one of the top 3, a luxury afforded to Djokovic, Federer and Nadal for their first slam wins.
If you say Murray's first slam win was a fluke then it may also be possible that his slam losses were unlucky.
And Murray still had to beat the monster that is Djokovic to get his first. And you could argue the conditions were more mentally tortuous for Murray having lost his previous 4 finals. I would say Murray displayed unbelievable strength of character to overcome the distractions amplifying all those mental demons in addition to the extreme physical and technical abilities required.
You could also argue that Murray is unlucky not to have 2 or 3 slams up to now rather than his first slam win being a fluke.

Well thank you for a civil response.
Have you considered that maybe Murray was unlucky in some of his slam finals eg his first slam final USO 2008 scheduling was a bit of a killer.
Also if you say Slam finals are a different animal then also Murray has never had the luxury of not playing one of the top 3, a luxury afforded to Djokovic, Federer and Nadal for their first slam wins.
If you say Murray's first slam win was a fluke then it may also be possible that his slam losses were unlucky.
And Murray still had to beat the monster that is Djokovic to get his first. And you could argue the conditions were more mentally tortuous for Murray having lost his previous 4 finals. I would say Murray displayed unbelievable strength of character to overcome the distractions amplifying all those mental demons in addition to the extreme physical and technical abilities required.
You could also argue that Murray is unlucky not to have 2 or 3 slams up to now rather than his first slam win being a fluke.

Click to expand...

You can argue ANYTHING that isn't a fact, but I don't see how the inferior player losing is unlucky-particularly when THIS particular inferior player had 60%(!) of his losses are in straight sets, and the other 40% went 1 set over the minimum. Not exactly Mr. Competitive!

Unlucky that he had to play top players in the final? Shocking! I utterly reject the notion that players are lucky that they didn't play top players in the final, that's an argue put up by nitwits who claim Fed's French Open wasn't legit because he didn't beat BP. Now, if BP, had, for example, been stabbed in the back before reaching the final, then, I could see that, or even if had missed the tournament, tough luck, but at least that theory has SOME credence-but, Nadal, came, he played, and he got his ass kicked-by the guy who got straight setted by Fed, btw. Same thing about people who try to diminish Seles' winning 7 Slams out of 9 prior to getting stabbed, by pointing out that she rarely beat Graf during that stretch. There was a very good reason for that: Graf didn't REACH many finals! You don't get CREDIT for avoiding an opponent by losing before you can meet them(while they continue to advance, obviously), and, in a similar vein, the Big Three were not "lucky" that they didn't have to face a high ranked player in their respective finals. Btw. I notice that you carefully avoided addressing the comment that Murray in a non Slam, Murray in a Slam other than the final, and Murray in the final, are VERY different players.

To say or imply that Andy Murray is anything less than an outstanding player is nonsense. Of the last nine majors, he's failed to get past the QFs only once. There's no player in the Open era who's had a tougher threesome to deal with, and if you believe there is, start counting up majors.

To say or imply that Andy Murray is anything less than an outstanding player is nonsense. Of the last nine majors, he's failed to get past the QFs only once. There's no player in the Open era who's had a tougher threesome to deal with, and if you believe there is, start counting up majors.

Click to expand...

Dunno if that is directed at ME, but I never said he's not an outstanding player. Everything is relative, he is better than all of the millions of people who play tennis, except a handful, literally. When it comes to Slam finals...not so much. One can be an outstanding player relative to almost everybody else and STILL be a choker.

Dunno if that is directed at ME, but I never said he's not an outstanding player. Everything is relative, he is better than all of the millions of people who play tennis, except a handful, literally. When it comes to Slam finals...not so much. One can be an outstanding player relative to almost everybody else and STILL be a choker.

Click to expand...

My comments were directed at no one person in particular, but the one comment about the competition Murray has faced bears repeating. In fact, the only players in the Open era who have faced tougher competition than he has are all of those ranked below him not named Nadal.
Another player who lost his first few finals is Andre Agassi, and things eventually worked out well for him. At the same stage in his career that Murray is currently at in his, February 1994, Agassi also held only one title, Wimbledon 1992. Needless to say, I'm not predicting eight titles for Murray. I'm predicting nothing. I don't have any idea how many majors he'll end up with, and neither does anyone else.

My comments were directed at no one person in particular, but the one comment about the competition Murray has faced bears repeating. In fact, the only players in the Open era who have faced tougher competition than he has are all of those ranked below him not named Nadal.
Another player who lost his first few finals is Andre Agassi, and things eventually worked out well for him. At the same stage in his career that Murray is currently at in his, February 1994, Agassi also held only one title, Wimbledon 1992. Needless to say, I'm not predicting eight titles for Murray. I'm predicting nothing. I don't have any idea how many majors he'll end up with, and neither does anyone else.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ on that last point, I don't know how many majors he'll end up with, absolutely correct. But I had an idea of how many majors Michael Chang would win, just like I have an idea of how many Murray will end up with, as well. As far as complaining about how tough your era is, that, IMO, is utterly pointless.

It's pretty funny, recreational players here calling Andy a fluke, most of you would give your eye teeth to win a challenger event ( or maybe even a club championship), get off his case , and buy a new racquet that your hero uses !

To say or imply that Andy Murray is anything less than an outstanding player is nonsense. Of the last nine majors, he's failed to get past the QFs only once. There's no player in the Open era who's had a tougher threesome to deal with, and if you believe there is, start counting up majors.

Click to expand...

Dunno about that; He's had old man Federer, Djokovic who only really came to light in 2011 and Nadal who isn't exactly unbeatable on hard and grass. With the praise Murray gets, you would have thought he has 10 majors to his name.

Dunno about that; He's had old man Federer, Djokovic who only really came to light in 2011 and Nadal who isn't exactly unbeatable on hard and grass. With the praise Murray gets, you would have thought he has 10 majors to his name.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of the overstated praise that you object to so much?

Sticking to the facts, the other guys you mention all played someone from outside the top 30 to win their first slam. I realise that you will say just about anything to talk murray down buy to imply that he is operating in a weak era is a bit mad mental even for a rabid hater like you.

I beg to differ on that last point, I don't know how many majors he'll end up with, absolutely correct. But I had an idea of how many majors Michael Chang would win, just like I have an idea of how many Murray will end up with, as well. As far as complaining about how tough your era is, that, IMO, is utterly pointless.

Click to expand...

How many slam finals did chang make? How many times did chang make 3 slam finals in a row? Do you get why your chang analogy is really poor yet?

I've just realised that you are claiming that you really can see into the future! Words fail me.

Slams in general, and Slam finals, in particular are completely different from other tournaments, more at stake, and, more pressure. Check out Murray's record vs the Big Three in tournaments, Slams, and Slam finals, and you will, see a marked difference-as evidenced by his very respectable record overall, at least against Fed and Nole, and his putrid record vs them in finals. Furthermore, if you can't understand that a fluke and result worthy of an * are completely separate, then we have nothing further to talk about.

Unlucky that he had to play top players in the final? Shocking! I utterly reject the notion that players are lucky that they didn't play top players in the final, that's an argue put up by nitwits...You don't get CREDIT for avoiding an opponent by losing before you can meet them(while they continue to advance, obviously), and, in a similar vein, the Big Three were not "lucky" that they didn't have to face a high ranked player in their respective finals. Btw. I notice that you carefully avoided addressing the comment that Murray in a non Slam, Murray in a Slam other than the final, and Murray in the final, are VERY different players.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that nitwits would claim players are lucky not meeting top players in the final but you yourself claim that Slam finals are completely different animals with different pressures as seen by your quote in bold above so I keep to your argument based on the premise that slam finals are completely different with intense pressure in which Murray has never faced anyone outside the top 3 yet the top 3 all faced someone, as Batz pointed out, not ranked below 30 in their first slam final and then you shoot me down for basing my argument on your very own logic.
I agree with you I think it is a nitwit argument to say someone like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were all lucky that they didn't have to face anyone ranked lower than 30 especially in their first slam finals but if, as you did claim, that slam finals are a completely different beast then on that premise, on your very own logic which you have written in black and white above, if your own theory applies then that automatically creates the condition that Murray must have been considerably less fortunate not to meet someone ranked outside the top 30 in his first slam final.
He did after all beat Nadal in the semi to get to the final of USO 2008 so it can't be argued it was a cakewalk path to the final. If Murray then faced someone ranked 30 in the final what do you think his chances of winning his first slam would have been?
Actually maybe your "nitwit" argument isn't so stupid if we take the lucky finalist stance by definition of your contradiction.

I agree with you that nitwits would claim players are lucky not meeting top players in the final but you yourself claim that Slam finals are completely different animals with different pressures as seen by your quote in bold above so I keep to your argument based on the premise that slam finals are completely different with intense pressure in which Murray has never faced anyone outside the top 3 yet the top 3 all faced someone, as Batz pointed out, not ranked below 30 in their first slam final and then you shoot me down for basing my argument on your very own logic.
I agree with you I think it is a nitwit argument to say someone like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were all lucky that they didn't have to face anyone ranked lower than 30 especially in their first slam finals but if, as you did claim, that slam finals are a completely different beast then on that premise, on your very own logic which you have written in black and white above, if your own theory applies then that automatically creates the condition that Murray must have been considerably less fortunate not to meet someone ranked outside the top 30 in his first slam final.
He did after all beat Nadal in the semi to get to the final of USO 2008 so it can't be argued it was a cakewalk path to the final. If Murray then faced someone ranked 30 in the final what do you think his chances of winning his first slam would have been?
Actually maybe your "nitwit" argument isn't so stupid if we take the lucky finalist stance by definition of your contradiction.

Click to expand...

Mate - we should know by now that they hold Murray to a different standard than the other guys. So, when Roger takes out Agassi at the USO in a roaring gale, it's evidence of Roger's inherent skill and ability to adapt, but when Murray beats Nole when it's windy, it's a fluke.

Hell, we've got a poster above implying that Murray is operating in a weak era, that 17 time slam champ Roger was 'an old man' in 2008 (aged 27), that 6 time slam winner Novak didn't count until 2011 (despite winning a slam in 2008 ) and that 11 time slam winner and 2 time Wimbledon winner and 2 time finalist Nadal really isn't all that hot on grass.

They will say absolutely anything to try and denigrate Murray's achievements.
I guess the only positive is that they are now in a tiny minority.

Mate - we should know by now that they hold Murray to a different standard than the other guys. So, when Roger takes out Agassi at the USO in a roaring gale, it's evidence of Roger's inherent skill and ability to adapt, but when Murray beats Nole when it's windy, it's a fluke.

Hell, we've got a poster above implying that Murray is operating in a weak era, that 17 time slam champ Roger was 'an old man' in 2008 (aged 27), that 6 time slam winner Novak didn't count until 2011 (despite winning a slam in 2008 ) and that 11 time slam winner and 2 time Wimbledon winner and 2 time finalist Nadal really isn't all that hot on grass.

They will say absolutely anything to try and denigrate Murray's achievements.
I guess the only positive is that they are now in a tiny minority.

Click to expand...

Lol...and then they have the nerve to accuse us of being 'Murraytards' just because we dare to point out the gaping flaws and amusing contradictions in their 'logic' and ask for them to try judging him by the same standards they judge their FAVOURITE players on the tour (SOME hope) !

I'm still trying to find evidence of the 'over-hyping' of Murray on here that some have claimed. Chance would be a fine thing! ;-)

Lol...and then they have the nerve to accuse us of being 'Murraytards' just because we dare to point out the gaping flaws and amusing contradictions in their 'logic' and ask for them to try judging him by the same standards they judge their FAVOURITE players on the tour (SOME hope) !

I'm still trying to find evidence of the 'over-hyping' of Murray on here that some have claimed. Chance would be a fine thing! ;-)

Click to expand...

Yep - that's my favourite part.

Hater: "Murray will never win a slam"

'Tards' : "There's a lot of empirical data to suggest that he stands a good chance e.g. nobody who made 3 slam finals ended their career slamless"

Hater: "Here we go - the Murray Brigade - Do you guys have a signal or something? You just can't deal with reasonable criticism of the over-hyped pusher. You're so far up Murray's ass, you're just blinded by your man love for him - he'll never win another slam. "

'Tards' "Again, there appear to be some pretty strong indicators to suggest he might, and if he isn't going to win any more, it does beg the question of who will over the next 3 or 4 years"

Hater: "Meh - until he beats Roger, Rafa, Nole, Pete, Andre, McEnroe, Borg, The Baltimore Ravens, Barca, The Miami Heat, Usain Bolt, and Fred Perry back to back - he'll never be a true slam Champion"